The free market wins again – carbon auction price is $14 per ton — up to 300 times cheaper than Carbon Tax

Landfill gas

All the usual suspects declared it could never work. Instead, “Direct Action” is likely to be wildly cheaper and more effective (at reducing CO2). The catch is, it won’t reward friends of big-government and it won’t punish miners, manufacturers and small businesses – which must be why climate activists don’t like it.

Results are just in from the first Abbott government Direct Action carbon auctions. The government offered to pay for carbon reduction, and held a reverse auction (where people who bid the lowest price would win). The average price came in at $14 a ton.

The Numbers: The Australian government will spend $660 million to reduce emissions by 47mT. These projects will run for about 7 years, and mean the government is on track to meet the target of 180mT reduction by 2020. — Details are at the Clean Energy Regulator.

It’s a lot less than the fantasy schemes that use wind and solar power, of which cost estimates vary partly because no one really knows what the lifespan and disposal costs are. One MIT study estimated the cost of abating carbon with wind was about $60 AUD per ton, and the cost of solar was $700 AUD per ton. (Marcantonini, 2013). Another estimate put the price of carbon reduction at South Australian windfarms at $1484 per ton. Pick a number — whatever it is, it’s a lot more than $14.

Direct Action is 5, 10 or 327 times cheaper than The Carbon Tax

The Gillard Government’s carbon tax was advertised as $24 per ton, but it was the price of emitting a ton (which is different from the $14 per ton price of that applies to actual reductions. The carbon tax is a hopelessly indirect way to buy “carbon reduction”. It took $15 billion from Australians and only abated 2.9 million tons of emissions. In a way, Labor’s carbon price ended up being $5310 per ton. There is no denying the distorting effect on the economy of a $15 billion dollar impost. The Carbon Tax applied to everything, hoping to make all energy users more efficient, but there were not many gains to be had across the board. Energy use is fairly inelastic, people were already doing the easy and cheap things. In comparison, Direct Action takes a small slice of tax, and only tries to change the behaviour of a few industries which can make the biggest difference.

In the end, the vast bulk of the carbon abatement from Direct Action comes (predictably) from “sequestration” (28mT) and “landfill and waste” (18mT). In this auction, the cheapest form of carbon reductions come from things like forest protection, carbon farmers, and landfill gas projects.

Carbon Farming: We pay for it now, but the governments just stole it for years

Spare a thought for the first carbon farmers who were paid nothing — they were the victims of the Native Vegetation Acts. By stopping clearing of private property, the governments (of both persuasions) locked in most of our reductions for the Kyoto agreement. Our per capita emissions fell by 28% from 1990 to 2014. But two-thirds of that 28% came from “land use changes and forestry”. Some families like Peter Spencer‘s lost their life’s work. The carbon credits they were forced to provide for the Commonwealth still counted in the tallies today. When will they get paid? (At a ballpark estimate, Spencer’s property would be worth something like $40m in “carbon abatement” at todays prices.)

What Direct Action won’t “achieve” is a class of dependent corporates

The most important outcome is that, unlike a carbon market, there won’t be a new dependent class of companies who have to go to Parliament lobbyist-in-hand to beg or butter up MP’s. With a blanket carbon tax, every industry wants carbon-permits, or free passes, for themselves to keep doing business as usual. The carbon market of the EU, Rudd, and Gillard fosters these sort of deals and pleas. Big-government could use subsidies to feed industries that will vote and cheer for them (think renewables). They could use the fake free markets to put reigns on the real free market. (What would stop them?) The miners, the electricity generators, the manufacturers generate independent wealth and power, and if they choose too, they could run major campaigns against the big-government taxes and imposts. But if they need to ask special favours, they are less likely to rock the boat. A carbon price is just another tool to keep them in line and obedient; it sure isn’t much good at reducing carbon.

The bottom line

If we assume that reducing CO2 is pointless (we do), the Abbott government has wasted $660m dollars, but at least there are some not-so-bad side products. (How low are our expectations?) The Coalition has wasted less money than Labor on trying to change the weather, though both policies have the same impact on the climate. As a least-worst-scenario, we end up with more money, forests and trees, and some of the energy generated from landfill will be useful. It’s a shame the Coalition will be more efficient at reducing our emissions (because we should be emitting more CO2), but for a plan with a dumb target, this outcome is as good as it gets. Shutting it all down would be better. Tell the Abbott government what you think (last day to get your submissions in.)

Alternately, the critics (reneweconomy) say that the 7 year contracts won’t deliver in time, and it won’t meet the delusional ambits the Climate Change Authority that were put out yesterday. They were uncosted fairy wish-list aims, released by a group that is essentially an advertising panel set up by the previous Labor government. Predictably, the group announced a new pie-in-the-sky target. Today, critics of the carbon auctions can say (vaguely) “but it won’t meet the targets” which has all the right PR buzz-words, if not much relevant meaning.

Ted, it would be better to talk about functioning versus non-functioning markets. You are correct that no market is free. What is important is that the market power between buyers and sellers is roughly the same. The closer they are in market power to each other, the better the market functions. The greater disparity between the market power of buyers and sellers, the worse the market functions.

Break down market power structures and the market will function better. Build power structures and everything is worse.

As a farmer I have lived my life in a market which has a third factor above supply and demand. Uncertainty of supply quantities in a system which depends on dare I say climatic variations. In such a system in an affluent economy, prudence dictates that affluence depends on overproduction. Oversupply minimises prices. Good for the consumers, but can be very hard on the producers, especially when competing producers in other countries are heavily subsidised. However, in the marketplace we have, this oversupply is localised. The Greens as market players call for Australia to cut food production while people in the world are going hungry.

Then there is a third entity between buyers and sellers, those who both buy and sell. These are the people who rule the market, with dollars their only ethic. The first rule in commerce is to never allow the consumer to meet the producer.

Back to the $14. It may be a less bad alternative, but this market is still founded in the same, as Pointman seems to say at #1, bullshit.

But first you trust that they are not Grubbering us and that socialists, scientists, politicians, money changers, academia, MSM and NGOs have no vested interest in new taxes, research grants, scary headlines or hedge funds/derivatives and one must have faith that:
1.CO2 is causing CAGW.
2.CO2 will cause billions of people to die.
3.government can control the temperature of the earth.
4.there will be no negative unintended consequences of their socialism.
5.unlike every time in the past, when scientists gave governments all the fodder they needed to scare the hell out of the “children”, this time it’s really, really serial.

Once I’m convinced I’ll gladly jump onboard.
Although, I’m having trouble buying in to their BS.

It seems to be a sop to the greens. Look! We are doing something about it! We are saving the planet after all.
Sheesh. If people are so worried about their “emissions,” they could change what they habitually eat and drink more profitably and probably more healthily.

With annual human CO2 emissions less than 4% of the overall annual emissions, any reduction is not worth bothering with. What effects is it going to have?

If CO2 reduction should be worth while, then it needs to be proven. At present, the opposite is the case. The big beneficiary of increased CO2 emissions is us, through the improvement to plant life, bringing increased crop yields with savings in fertilizer, and the improvements in public health from more accessible and cheaper food. What’s good for us, is also good for all other animal life.

If, however, we are wanting to conserve resources, then let’s focus on such conservation as conservation not just some warm, fuzzy super-expensive “reduction in emissions.” Then we can identify what we need to conserve, what we want to conserve and why, prioritising those identified. From that we can figure out what is needed to do it, how it can be profitable for everybody, focus on the targets, work out cost effective methods of achieving them, and start working towards them. “Warm fuzzies” is neither efficient nor effective and most likely wrong.

Why don’t we just leave the CO2 to that which benefits most from it: all life?

It’s always full stop or flat out with the greens with the welfare of people last.

I don’t remember ever meeting a fellow CAGW skeptic that would wantonly contaminate the planet with hazardous chemicals because our opposition to the demonization of CO2 turns us into evil environmental vandals, even wild animals will move on to fresher pastures knowing the old one will replenish but the greens somehow equate our gift of self awareness with being a glitch in the ecosystem, perhaps the glitch is ones that fear actual progress?

After 16 years in power, decimating Tasmania’s industries they are now faced with the prospect of having to accept the only industry they said they could live with, tourism. Well what do you know, when push actually came to shove, tourism was no good either.

Basically they don’t want any industry, full stop. They want less humans (but not starting with their families) and they will not accept development or progress of any type. We see that clearly now. Once cornered in Tassy they finally showed that they have no interest in employment or social harmony whatsoever.

I agree that the greens contributed to the demise of Tas. industry, but one has to remember that industry and government leaders at the time didn’t show much initiative. Look at the reasons for the demise of the Tasmanian apple industry which occurred before Bob Brown came to town, and they are pretty well the same.

I don’t remember ever meeting a fellow CAGW skeptic that would wantonly contaminate the planet with hazardous chemicals

… so you would be ready to sign a petition banning dihydrogenmonoxide, then. It’s spread all over the planet, kills hundreds of people every year—hundreds per week in the Mediterranean over the last few months. It’s in baby food, it’s used by chemical companies with pesticides, it’s in everything we eat to greater and lesser degrees, causes urination, sweating etc with over exposure …
It’s gotta go.

As with many things we mere mortals wonder about that politicians do I suspect that the “Direct Action” is engineered to play the game of politics with. If nothing had been done by the Coalition then Labor Greens would have something to run a scare campaign with and the Coalition understands how gullible too many voters are.

Attaching a negative societal value to a trace atmospheric gas and achieving the same thing is mind blowingly brilliant, and in addition to greed, only possible for the reasons already stated by Einstein.

I liked the picture of the gas electricity plant on the landfill rubbish site.

This represents the best part of environmentalism:
1. Reduce – the rubbish gets reduced to CH4
2. Reuse – the gas is reused instead of getting lost in the atmosphere
3. Recycle – it powers up our life so we make more rubbish, round and round.

‘Research leader Matthew ­England said the significance of the latest research was it showed the slowdown in global warming had no bearing on long-term projections. “It is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation,” he said’

I think Matthew is on the right track.
I have the feeling that the changes in climate we have experienced are not just part of “decadel variation”, but are either “centurical variation” or “milleniumical variation”.

a) It is far more expensive to produce on a cents per cubic meter basis
b) Due to the economics of scale, it is far more expensive to transform it to electrical energy using small reciprocating heat engines than it is in a large power station using turbo-machinery.
c) It is far ‘dirtier’ in terms of contaminants that damage the equipment that is consuming it.

It can and has been used when there is a large dump next to a factory using a lot of heat. For efficient use in generating electricity the gas has to be cleaned up, which costs. Then the costs of distribution rule out its use over longer distances.

I think the more interesting question is why this government (that clearly does not believe the climate science or any science for that matter) has a policy at all on this.

There’s no doubt the political winds have changed and are changing quite fast on this issue, this government has been dragged kicking and screaming to the table but nevertheless it is at the table, something most of its members would prefer not to be.

I’ve said many times before but worth repeating, you guys are so obviously on the wrong side of history on this issue that I find it very difficult to understand why you can’t see that. None so blind………….

Why does every proposed solution to CO2 reduction involve someone turning gas into money? You would think if anyone was genuine about it, it would be emissions caps and business closure for failing to meet them. Simple.

You can tell the whole thing is a complete scam by the fact that every single plan to address the so called problem involves the suggester making a heap of cash.

“I’ve said many times before but worth repeating, you guys are so obviously on the wrong side of history on this issue that I find it very difficult to understand why you can’t see that. None so blind………….”

FIN, people on the wrong side of history always say stuff like that in trying to justify their beliefs when defying the evidence, it’s called projecting.

I mean, really, FIN, logically – if that were the case you would not be so frightened of sceptics that you haunt sceptic blogs, trying to force your beliefs, being abusive, and peddling misinformation and diversion.

Between the tropics (Capricorn to Cancer) there is water vapour at about 40,000 ppmv or about 4%.
with it reducing to around 5 ppmv (0.0005%) at the poles. (Cold and dry).

Now, we can draw a grid of 102 rows with 102 columns to represent one unit of tropospheric atmosphere.
The grid holds 10,404 cells.
1. Taking the above proportions of the atmosphere, we can select 10,000 of those cells at random and paint them white. They represent the three main gases nitrogen, oxygen and argon, in the atmosphere.

2. Select 4 of the remaining cells at random and paint them red to represent the CO2.

3. Paint the remaining 400 cells blue to represent the water vapour. Done.

Now look at just how much CO2 is in each unit. Scary, isn’t it?

That’s the atmosphere today. You can make a second one to represent the atmosphere in 1850 but it has only 3 red cells. You can
paint the empty cell mostly which and partly blue to represent the other parts of the atmosphere if you like or you can paint it all white. Doesn’t matter. If you really want to be incredibly pedantic, you can recalculate all the proportions and work them out exactly. They won’t differ significantly from those I’ve given.

That closely represents the change in CO2 since 1850.
\That one extra molecule of CO2 per unit of atmosphere is claimed to have caused the Northern Hemisphere warming of 0.7 degrees Celsius over the last 165 years. It’s been only 0.28 degrees Celsius in the Southern Hemisphere. That difference should alert you to cause of the warming not being CO2.

1. State personal fantasy (or desired propaganda meme) but make no effort to substantiate it.
2. Use inflammatory language (hope to provoke angry responses?)
3. Nurture the “swing”, the “momentum”, the “shift” because it’s all theatre.

We’re bored FIN, you are too predictable. I don’t know how this comment got through, but no more unless you can … become a new person, and actually learn to make an argument. We want a better troll. Please commenters. Lets discuss the post, not FIN.

Wow Fin you finally said something I agree with.“I think the more interesting question is why this government (that clearly does not believe the climate science or any science for that matter) has a policy at all on this.”

100% spot on. Why do they?

I think the answer is they realise there are a whole host of gullible cretins in society and in order to buy their votes, all you have to do is throw some money at the weather and they will think you give a stuff about their delusional fantasies.

I thought a smart guy like you would have worked that out. Although being in the Government’s target group. Maybe not.

I was amazed to see Hunt get 14 seconds on the ABC explaining it this morning. They balanced it out though by following it with read out information, 3 times as long apparently from the Climate Commission (who even knows who is who now)saying Hunt was lying.

You have to love a field of endeavour, particularly in science, where basically anyone can go into the media and make basically any claim they want and there seem to be no cross checks, no verifications and particularly no consequences.

No wonder those of us with functioning intellects regard climate science as somewhat of a joke. Have a crack at going into the media and challenging gravity or combustion, see how you go.

I think the tool kit for a climate scientist would have to be a handful of chicken bones and an old tea bag wouldn’t it?

While it is a lot better than the Labor and Green’s barking stupidity it is still a giant con and fraud.

More than 90% of new increased emissions of co2 until 2040 will come from developing countries like China and India.
Countries like the USA and all of the EU will nearly flat line over that period of time.
And OZ and NZ combined will only produce about 1.4% combined of global human co2 emissions.
And both OZ and NZ’s EEZ ( Antarctica, southern ocean etc) absorb at least 10 times the co2 that we emit. So it’s a BS argument whichever way you look at it.

It is interesting to note that in the news Belle Gibson is vilified for telling porkies in order to reap the benefit of hundreds of thousands in donation. Just yesterday an outfit called AMI that peddles nasal spray for penis enhancement etc was brought to its knees by the ACCC.
How do these health care scams differ from the activities of the so-called ‘climate council’?
The only difference that I can see is that Gibson and AMI only scammed a few suckers. The climate council’s fabrications are deployed against the entire nation.

What I find really galling is that when Labor’s CO2 Tax was introduced, it was explained with straight faces and serious looks, while here, Leigh makes light of it with a joke in the very first sentence, imploring people not to turn off.

If both schemes are similar, then both should be just as boring for viewers, eh Leigh!

LEIGH SALES: And so that goes – sorry to interrupt, minister, but that goes to my point then: if it is drastically exceeded – in fact I think it’s exceeded by about 10 times what you said would be an outstanding result.

GREG HUNT: Correct.

LEIGH SALES: If that’s the case, then why not revise our targets for emissions reduction upwards by 10 times?

Wait. The same question applies here; Why not double the carbon(sic) tax?

“Treasury reference modelling showed that without a carbon (sic) tax, manufacturing was expected to grow more slowly than the rest of the economy, by about half a per cent annually to 2020 in real terms.”
. . .
Now I get it. The way to get manufacturing businesses going is to tax them more heavily.
If the carbon tax does that then why not double it?

***you would think the CAGW-infested Capital Weather Gang would be happy to see snow:

23 April: WaPo Capital Weather Gang: Angela Fritz: Winter makes an ***annoying comeback with late April snow
PHOTO CAPTION: This is not the kind of radar image you would want to see in late April. Snow is falling from Michigan to New England on Thursday morning , April 23 (Weather Underground)
Late April is starting to feel more like mid-winter for many parts of the U.S. this week. The Great Lakes and Northeast woke up to snow on Thursday morning and for some, it was actually the fourth day in a row of the wintry weather.
Since Sunday, it has snowed in at least 23 states, as far south as New Mexico, according to the national snow analysis from the National Weather Service…http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/04/23/winter-makes-an-annoying-comeback-with-late-april-snow/

LEIGH SALES: ‘On the carbon tax … under the previous government’s scheme, the carbon tax by now would have been floating at about $10 a tonne. Companies would have been paying that to the Government to pollute. Now under your scheme … the Government is paying companies $14 a tonne not to pollute. How is that efficient use of taxpayer money?

GREG HUNT: ‘No, with great respect, there’s a fundamental error in that analysis. That is the ALP analysis and that’s why it was wrong.’

every day we post articles from left-leaning, CAGW-advocating MSM, so no apologies for posting the following, tho i haven’t seen the Gazette characterised as being particularly rightwing. from the Gazette’s Wikipdia page: “It has the second largest circulation in Colorado, behind the Denver Post.”.

23 April: Colorado Springs Gazette: Editorial: Stop ‘global warming’ hysteria
Sunday, in advance of his trip, the president said because of global warming “rising sea levels are putting a national treasure, and an economic engine for the South Florida tourism industry, at risk.”…
Meanwhile, despite political hyperbole, global warming hypothesis loses credibility by the day.
The federal government spends $22 billion a year fighting global warming, which is twice what it spends on border security. That’s $41,856 each minute. Accounting for the costs global warming regulations impose on businesses, Forbes columnist Larry Bell estimated the annual cost of global warming policies at $1.754 trillion each year — three times the size of the federal budget deficit.
Obama and other global warming alarmists want the country to spend even more…
We must ask ourselves what crisis they hope to solve. NASA reports the world has warmed .36 degrees over the past 35 years. Most of that warming occurred between 1979 and 1998. Since 1998, global temperatures have gradually cooled.
Eight years ago, Al Gore told us global warming had reach such a critical stage we could expect the North Polar ice cap to be gone by 2014. It is still there, and NASA satellite data show the ice cap has grown by as much as 63 percent in recent years.
A Forbes article by James Taylor blew the lid off a widely cited paper claiming a 97 percent “scientific consensus” about a human-caused global warming crisis…
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t,” said an email from Kevin Trenberth, part of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of the “Scientific Assessment of Climate Change” report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
We could go on ad infinitum with data and common sense observations that call into question the need for our country to continue hemorrhaging money on global warming — or “climate change,” when temperatures drop. The fact is, even if proved true, the chances our trillions will alter the weather are practically nil…
We would never suggest the president avoid travel to help save the planet. We only ask that he, Al Gore and other’s who warn about global warming stop demanding the rest of us pay for a problem no one has proved. Let’s feed hungry children, improve education and defend our country before tilting at windmills.http://gazette.com/editorial-stop-global-warming-hysteria/article/1550190

23 April: WSJ: Lamar Smith: The Climate-Change Religion
(Lamar Smith is a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.)
Earth Day provided a fresh opening for Obama to raise alarms about global warming based on beliefs, not science.
Given that for the past decade and a half global-temperature increases have been negligible, and that the worsening-storms scenario has been widely debunked, the pronouncements from the Obama administration sound more like scare tactics than fact-based declarations.
At least the United Nations’ then-top climate scientist, Rajendra Pachauri, acknowledged—however inadvertently—the faith-based nature of climate-change rhetoric when he resigned amid scandal in February. In a farewell letter, he said that “the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”
Instead of letting political ideology or climate “religion” guide government policy, we should focus on good science. The facts alone should determine what climate policy options the U.S. considers. That is what the scientific method calls for: inquiry based on measurable evidence. Unfortunately this administration’s climate plans ignore good science and seek only to advance a political agenda…
Christiana Figueres, the official leading the U.N.’s effort to forge a new international climate treaty later this year in Paris, told reporters in February that the real goal is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years.” In other words, a central objective of these negotiations is the redistribution of wealth among nations. It is apparent that President Obama shares this vision…
Climate alarmists have failed to explain the lack of global warming over the past 15 years. They simply keep adjusting their malfunctioning climate models to push the supposedly looming disaster further into the future…
The U.N. process is designed to generate alarmist results. Many people don’t realize that the most-publicized documents of the U.N. reports are not written by scientists. In fact, the scientists who work on the underlying science are forced to step aside to allow partisan political representatives to develop the “Summary for Policy Makers.”…
Yet those who raise valid questions about the very real uncertainties surrounding the understanding of climate change have their motives attacked, reputations savaged and livelihoods threatened. This happens even though challenging prevailing beliefs through open debate and critical thinking is fundamental to the scientific process.
The intellectual dishonesty of senior administration officials who are unwilling to admit when they are wrong is astounding. When assessing climate change, we should focus on good science, not politically correct science.http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-change-religion-1429832149

if only our MSM would point out some of the above when they report on CAGW.

This CO2 control is based on the idea that CO2 released into the air stays there. Any physical chemist will tell you that is naive nonsense, non science.

Even the IPCC agrees that final CO2 levels are totally determined by the massive ocean, home to 98% of all free CO2. The world is like a giant bottle of lemonade with the water full of gas. The lid is gravity.

The only area of disagreement is the time taken to restore the equilibrium determined by Henry’s Law. The unequivocal evidence is 12 years as evidenced by the way C14 tagged CO2 vanished after the atmospheric testing stopped in 1965. Of course the IPCC says 80 years, without any evidence at all but to paraphrase the late Mandy Rice Davies from the Profumo affair, they would say that, wouldn’t they. To say otherwise is to deny their very existence.

With a half life of 12 years to equilibrium, the whole RET and Carbon Sequestration and abatement is utter nonsense. So is man made anything to do with the weather. Still to please the latter day Luddites with no science but voting power, we have to pretend to fix something which is not true and not a problem anyway but at far lower internal cost than a self serving Carbon tax paid to the UN and its friends.

It is amazing Professor Flannery just said Lomberg’s basic degree is in Politics, implying he is not qualified to offer an opinion on physical sciences. This is amazing from someone whose basic degree is a BA in English.

The difference between ocean dissolved O2 and CO2 is startling. 50ml/litre(5%) against 3ml/litre(0.3%) for O2, due probably to the much high compressibility of CO2 against O2, also reflected in the freezing point being much lower and CO2 freezes solid at aircraft altitudes too. (-78c vs -219C)

CO2 goes down with the sinking cold water at the poles adding to the huge reserves and does not come up except at the equator. That is why the CO2 in the ocean is 50x what is in the atmosphere instead of roughly equal as Henry’s Law would indicate and even the slightest surface warming will trigger a dramatic increase in CO2. Of course that is now agreed by warmists, except that they have reversed the logic to argue the increase in CO2 produces global warming. This is very odd as only the water surface is warmer, but who cares about a little slip of logic? You can always argue the oceans ‘stole’ the heat. Someone will think that is typical. You can never trust the ocean.

22 April: UK Independent: General Election 2015: Green Party accused of ignoring climate change during campaign
by Tom Bawde/Nigel Morris
Scientists and campaigners have rounded on the Green Party by accusing it of turning its back on its main mission by largely ignoring the crucial issue of climate change in the run-up to the general election.
Critics said that although the Green Party manifesto contains plenty of references to policies on global warming, the subject has gone largely unspoken in campaigning by the party and its leader, Natalie Bennett.
Professor Peter Wadhams, of the University of Cambridge, who has edited highly influential UN reports on the subject, said: “The Green Party are grievously at fault in not talking about climate change. Its politicians should be saying that the most important and urgent problem facing the whole planet, including the UK, is climate change and the speed at which it is happening.
“Natalie Bennett had a great chance to talk about the issues at the debate last Thursday but was very disappointing because she came across as just another machine politician, talking about the NHS and unemployment. The words ‘climate change’ may briefly have passed her lips but she didn’t make any kind of a point about it.”…
The failure of all parties to address global warming in their campaigning is a “sad indictment” on the political system, the professor of ocean physics said, calling it a “disgrace”…http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-green-party-accused-of-ignoring-climate-change-during-campaign-10196706.html

23 April: E&E Publishing: Evan Lehmann, Climatewire: POLICY: Carbon tax could replace Obama’s climate rules, Democrat says
Rep. John Delaney told an audience at a conservative think tank yesterday that he’s drafting a bill to tax carbon that could lead to the repeal of President Obama’s signature policy of regulating CO2 emissions at power plants…
Delaney made his Earth Day announcement at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy shop that has made splashes in Republican circles, not all of them welcome, by hosting discussions about taxing carbon.
The highest-profile of those, in 2012, were described by conservative critics as occurring in secret, leading to some speculation that AEI might be promoting the tax to replace revenue that would be lost by cutting income taxes…
Those early discussions, which featured AEI economists and others from Democratic-leaning groups, has led to a new book that’s described as a key resource for lawmakers interested in pursuing a carbon tax. It’s named “Implementing a U.S. Carbon Tax” and was unveiled at the event yesterday…
It would place a $30 price on each metric ton of carbon dioxide, and it would rise by 4 percent above inflation annually.
***Half of its revenue would be applied to reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent…READ ALLhttp://www.eenews.net/stories/1060017290

23 April: Calgary Herald: Frank Atkins: Alberta will pay price for Central Canada’s cap-and-trade deal
(Frank Atkins is the chair of finance and capital markets at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.)
The governments of Ontario and Quebec recently announced their intention to enter into a cap-and-trade arrangement. The goal here is to put a price on carbon…
Notice, however, the underlying assumption is that carbon is bad, and emission of carbon is contributing to global warming. There are a growing number of individuals who just do not buy into this man-made global warming hypothesis. However, leaving this argument aside, there is a strong possibility that this cap-and-trade system may lead to what politicians euphemistically call unintended consequences…
If a government feels that they must tax something, this tax should be open and understood. A cap-and-trade method of implementing a carbon tax is anything but transparent. What will happen is that firms will have to pay more to produce goods and this will be passed along to consumers, who will likely not connect the increase in the price of goods with the carbon tax.
Therefore, implementing a carbon tax through a cap-and-trade system could be viewed as a cynical political manner in which to tax something without the government taking blame for instituting the tax. From this perspective, if a government feels that they must institute a carbon tax, then why not just put a tax on gasoline, as was done in British Columbia?
***The odd thing about this agreement is that no details have been announced…
Premier Kathleen Wynne has announced that the money raised from this tax will be diverted into more green energy initiatives. This is a very bad idea. Ontario’s recent green initiative forced the province into wind and solar power, which are very expensive forms of energy. Accordingly, electricity prices increased dramatically…READ ONhttp://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/atkins-alberta-will-pay-price-for-central-canadas-cap-and-trade-deal

23 April: Toronto Star: Carbon pricing just a tax grab, Stephen Harper says
But prime minister says Ottawa will soon bring out targets for greenhouse gas reductions post-2020
“Anybody who tells you that a carbon tax is an environmental policy is trying to pull the wool over your eyes,” Harper said Thursday during an event in Winnipeg…
But Harper said such emissions-reduction plans are really only designed to enrich governments. “The reason governments do carbon taxes is not so they can reduce emissions but so they can get more tax revenue in the government’s pocket,” he told the media.
The federal Conservatives will steer clear of carbon taxes, Harper said. But he reiterated Ottawa will shortly bring out long-range goals for tackling global warming…GOES DOWNHILL FROM HERE (LOL)http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/04/23/carbon-pricing-just-a-tax-grab-stephen-harper-says.html

I’ve urged Liberal MPs to call out ABC bias. Frontbenchers Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg now do this with glee and effect.

Now add Greg Hunt to that happy list
LEIGH SALES: On the carbon tax … under the previous government’s scheme, the carbon tax by now would have been floating at about $10 a tonne. Companies would have been paying that to the Government to pollute. Now under your scheme … the Government is paying companies $14 a tonne not to pollute. How is that efficient use of taxpayer money?

GREG HUNT: No, with great respect, there’s a fundamental error in that analysis. That is the ALP analysis and that’s why it was wrong.

So how much will 236 million tonnes of abatement cost? Way way more than the $2.55 billion in the ERF. Yesterday’s successful bidders were low hanging fruit, and there’s no guarantee they’ll deliver. Moreover, there’s nothing stopping existing polluters from increasing their emissions.

I love how climate skeptics are joyously celebrating the success of the LNPs carbon dioxide abatement scheme.

“We’re celebrating the free market success over big-government mega-taxing.”
But hold on – aren’t you opposed to AGW because you believe it to be scientifically incorrect? If that is the case, there’s nothing to celebrate.

Given that the ERF spending, as well as the wages of a large number of public servants in the Departments of Industry, Finance, PM&C etc who were tasked with the policy development and implementation are paid from the contributions of all taxpayers, it’s very strange that you see this as a free market success over government taxing.

Do you mean that you’re opposed to taxes imposed upon big emitters, but have no qualms about the taxes being imposed on the masses to pay for the ERF and all the associated peripheral government support?

[You're missing the point. No one likes the tax or the auction. The point is that market forces are working in the auction but not in the case of the tax. The result is a lot less money down the drain. But we all know the money is down the drain either way.] AZ

I presume that, by “emissions”, you are referring to carbon dioxide? If not, then what do you mean by “emissions”?

If you are referring to carbon dioxide, which, with water, forms complex carbohydrates (carbo-, as in carbon, and hydrate, as in hydrogen) whilst releasing oxygen into the atmosphere, in the growing processes of all plants, which in turn, underpins the whole of the food-chain that you and I need to survive, then in what way is it such a bad thing?

We actually need more carbon dioxide. Compared to the historical record, carbon dioxide levels are at dangerously low levels, today.

Pollution, on the other hand is particulate matter that is potentially dangerous to organic life. Thus Carbon dioxide = good; pollution = bad. Please do not conflate the two. That particular propaganda trick became passe several years ago, when the activists who actually understand science realised that they were becoming marginalised by the rest of the scientific community.

You obviously didn’t get the memo. Or perhaps you are no more than an activist with a lot of enthusiasm, but with a poor knowledge of science?

gah, all the units were topsy-turvy.
You say “47mT” which reads as micro-Teslas but you mean “Mt” which is megatonnes.

As for Direct Action, yeah we all know it’s pointless. Just one of those downfalls of democracy – if most people think the plant is in danger, taxpayer money will be spent saving it.
Public education has to catch up with the facts and the stats.

Greg Hunt interview “carbon abatement” trading hot air!
During my tenure as Branch Secretary to John Howard (showing him how to win Green Groups), and helping Tony Abbott write Green Corp Direct Action (Adelaide review June 95), the UN USG invited me to join UNCTAD / FCCC 95-02 (help write Kyoto protocol rules and specs.)
The $14.00 will not cover (1) the Registration UNFCCC baseline audit of proposed tree plantings (measure if any soil carbon) (2) Trees, rice, cotton, most grains vegetables take biomass carbon from the soil not atmosphere result is deserts (as simple Google). (3) Tree planting and indeed the thought of bio-sequestration under UNFCCC rules must be secure and insured for 100 yrs (the expected life of coal). So it appears to be a once off show the voters the Abbott ministry are doing something. Question the recipients’ of the money must register baseline with UNFCCC and establish 100 year assurance security protocol. Trees are a source of CO2 and geo sinks contaminate essential ground water (hence another insurance risk). Another question does the Abbott Government have a lawyer versed in the baseline assets of mankind Soil-water-vegetation-atmosphere and does the Government have an underwriter? My expert view is the Government has no runs anywhere, so, “since the lay-public (voters) have zero knowledge on Earth Science serve up anything” Conversely they could have applied the Australian science lowering CO2, reversing deserts, growing soil-food fodder and year 5-7 forestry native and exotic. By 2020 PRC will under UNFCCC 100 yr rule lower B8 tonnes CO2e PA and TO B$300 pa NPV in offset trading and global farm food production. Go thing Australia is not a business with share holders (voters) The Board would be gone yesterday
Without prejudice

Hi Robert,
Do you know how much carbon auditing prior to planting and the ongoing monitoring of soil carbon costs per hectare?

When you say trees take biomass from soil, do you mean most CO2 used in photosynthesis comes from CO2 released by soil microbes? If so that is still CO2 sequestered that otherwise would have ended up in the atmosphere.

Do you know what guarantees biosequesters have to give under Direct Action?